Supreme Court declines Abu Salem's plea against 'illegal custody': 'Sentence not for not doing something good to society'

Convicted under TADA for his role in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, Abu Salem was found guilty in 2017 of participating in the conspiracy and facilitating the distribution of arms and ammunition used in the attacks. (File photo)

• Supreme Court rejects Abu Salem's illegal custody plea
• Salem can seek early hearing before Bombay High Court
• Court said high court must decide on custody period calculation

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea by 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Abu Salem, who alleged that he has been kept in “illegal custody” for over 10 months after completing the 25-year term stipulated under the extradition arrangement with Portugal.

The court permitted him to pursue his remedy before the Bombay High Court, where the matter is already pending.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petition as withdrawn after Salem’s counsel sought liberty to move the high court for an early hearing.

“Mr Rishi Malhotra, learned senior counsel, after arguing for some time, states that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open for the petitioner to go before the High Court for an early hearing and disposal of the pending matter. Petition is dismissed with liberty,” the court recorded.

Claim of remission

Salem’s counsel argued that he had completed the 25-year incarceration period when remission earned for good conduct was factored in. Referring to the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, counsel submitted that Rule 4 provides for different categories of remission, and that Salem was claiming ordinary and annual good conduct remission.

“Today, I (Salem) have already surpassed more than 10 months of my illegal custody. I have undergone 25 years which this court had awarded me,” counsel told the bench. He described the case as one of habeas corpus, asserting that Salem was being held beyond the permissible term.

The court, however, was not inclined to examine the computation at this stage. Justice Mehta observed that the plea before the Supreme Court effectively challenged the interim findings of the high court and advised counsel to seek appropriate relief there. “This is certainly not the case of habeas corpus, but an appeal,” he remarked.

High court’s prima facie view

In July 2025, the Bombay High Court had prima facie held that Salem had not yet completed 25 years in custody. It relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier direction that counted the period from October 12, 2005, and provided that he would be entitled to release upon completing 25 years. The high court admitted Salem’s petition but declined to grant interim relief.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel pointed to an additional affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, claiming there was an “arithmetical error” in the State’s calculation. The affidavit stated that as of March 31, 2025, Salem had completed 19 years, 5 months, and 18 days of imprisonment.

The bench noted that the affidavit placed Salem’s time served at 19 years. Justice Nath said the correctness of the affidavit would have to be assessed by the high court and that the apex court could not assume the burden of matters pending before lower courts. “After considering the affidavits, the high court will decide...” the bench observed.

Oral remarks from the bench

When counsel reiterated that Salem had undergone more than 10 months of “illegal custody,” Justice Nath responded sharply. “You (Salem) were given 25 years (sentence) for not doing something good for society. You are convicted under the TADA,” he said. On another occasion during the hearing, Justice Nath orally remarked, “You have stayed for 25 years for not doing something good for society. You have [been] convicted under TADA.”

The bench said that the high court had denied only interim relief and that Salem should argue the matter finally before it. “Go and argue it finally (before the high court),” the judges told counsel.

Background and extradition assurance

Salem was extradited from Portugal in November 2005 after prolonged proceedings before Portuguese courts. The Government of India had assured Portugal that he would neither face the death penalty nor imprisonment exceeding 25 years if extradited for trial. In a July 2022 judgment on a separate plea, the Supreme Court held that the Centre was “bound” to honour that assurance and release him upon completion of the 25-year term.

Convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act for his role in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, Salem was found guilty in 2017 of participating in the conspiracy and facilitating the distribution of arms and ammunition used in the attacks. A special TADA court subsequently awarded him life imprisonment.

Salem has approached the courts seeking a direction to authorities to specify a release date on the ground that continuing his detention beyond 25 years would violate his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State of Maharashtra, however, maintains that the 25-year period has not yet been completed.